I'm less convinced that the federal courts didn't do what they had to do given the facts and the pleadings. They certainly weren't given anything in the first round of filings and, realistically, it was probably too late from a clinical standpoint for Terry when they were given a second chance to intervene.
Even then, it's arguable at best. The Schindlers' lawyers simply never made the best arguments and it was apparent to many of us here at the time.
Take the emotional aspects of Terri's case and put them aside for a moment. These life and death matters rightly belong to the states. We allow states to decide whether or not to have a death penalty. If Roe v. Wade is reversed, it will return the options regarding abortion to the states for them to decide.
Just like probate law belongs to the states, so should these decisions. The states are the testing grounds for different approaches to legal matters, and having 50 of them trying out different things ultimately leads to better decisions which are later adopted by all.
Florida screwed this one up. The answer isn't a federal law, hastily written in a couple of days. It's for other states to observe the process and come up with alternative solutions.
While it's not on point, Federal law guarantees a death row convict the right of Federal appeal, even though the underlying case is tried according to state law.
Civil procedure is also largely a creation of Congress, adapted by the various states, Louisiana excepted, of course.
Anyway, thanks for the small concession that the question of whether or not the federal judges followed the law is "arguable at best." Whether or not the Federal courts followed the law is not a slam dunk, either "yes" or "no."
Florida screwed this one up. The answer isn't a federal law, hastily written in a couple of days.
It's foolish to count on Congress to get anything right ;-) But it may be that federal oversight is appropriate, in some cases of withholding food and water with the objective of shortening life. Especially where an error below results in NOT following the patient's wishes and killing them AGAINST their wishes. That's the intent of federal oversight in capital cases, to provide a safeguard just in case the state court blew it. The stakes are the same, life and death. It's a minor check on state power and on an individual's right to self-determination, without outright denial of either.
FWIW, the dissenting judge noted, in the opinion published on March 23, that his opinion of "preservation of status quo" as envisioned by Congress required the resumption of feeding. Even if the matter wasn't framed for a de novo review of the facts; following legislative intent as intepreted by the dissenting judge was probably not too late from a medical clinical point.
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/32305opn11.pdf <-
I'm really not interested in rehashing the case at this point. It'll be rehashed by better scholars than me, and I'm content to wait for them to finish their analyses. Like I said, my general point is that just about every aspect of this case is arguable. Except on FR ;-)
If you recall the Florida Senate passed a law the 2nd time Terri's feeding tube was removed. That should have been the end of it - but no the Florida Supreme court did not like that law and called it unconstitutional. Why bother having a legislative branch if the judges decide in the end what will be the law?